Re: Re: [PATCH] Integer overflow in timestamp[tz]_part() and date/time boundaries check

15.03.2016 03:21, Vitaly Burovoy:
> On 3/14/16, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> 14.03.2016 16:23, David Steele:
>>> On 2/25/16 4:44 PM, Vitaly Burovoy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Added to the commitfest 2016-03.
>>>>
>>>> [CF] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/9/540/
>>> This looks like a fairly straight-forward bug fix (the size of the
>>> patch is deceptive because there a lot of new tests included). It
>>> applies cleanly.
>>>
>>> Anastasia, I see you have signed up to review. Do you have an idea
>>> when you will get the chance to do that?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>> I've read the patch thoroughly and haven't found any problems. I think
>> that the patch is in a very good shape.
>> It fixes a bug and has an excellent set of tests.
>>
>> There is an issue, mentioned in the thread above:
>>
>>> postgres=# select
>>> postgres-# to_char(date_trunc('week', '4713-01-01 BC'::date),'day')
>>> postgres-# ,to_char(date_trunc('week', '4714-12-29 BC'::date),'day')
>>> postgres-# ,to_char(date_trunc('week', '4714-12-28 BC'::date),'day');
>>> to_char | to_char | to_char
>>> -----------+-----------+-----------
>>> monday | monday | thursday
>>> (1 row)
>>> since 4714-12-28 BC and to the past detection when a week is starting
>>> is broken (because it is boundary of isoyears -4713 and -4712).
>>> Is it worth to break undocumented range or leave it as is?
>> But I suppose that behavior of undocumented dates is not essential.
> I'm sorry... What should I do with "Waiting on Author" state if you
> don't have complaints?
>

I was going to set "Ready for Committer", but then I've noticed message
from Mark Dilger and changed my mind.
Now, when you answered him, I have no objections.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company